Ed Davey: Chocolate Teapot

Sir Edward Davey, former Post Office minister

I lost patience with Ed Davey at around 2.30pm this afternoon. It was when Jason Beer read into the record the sheer number of red flags being waved in Ed Davey’s face about the Post Office’s behaviour and its dodgy Horizon IT system from the moment he took office.

On 20 May 2010, the day Davey was appointed, Alan Bates wrote a letter on Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance headed paper. It read:

“We are an independent group of ex and serving subpostmasters who have suffered at the hands of the Post Office and their Horizon system ever since it was first installed. Our website jfsa.org.uk outlines how we came about and our aims, as well as offering sample cases that can provided by some of the group. Currently the group numbers close to 100, though we continue to be joined by others who have learnt of JFSA and have found that there is nowhere else to turn for help.”

Bates told of individual Subpostmasters being “deserted by their reputedly representative organization, the National Federation of Subpostmasters”. He noted the unfairness of the Postmasters’ contractual relationship: “The Post Office blindly state that there are not, nor have there ever been any system errors, so subsequently anything wrong is entirely the responsibility of the Subpostmaster.” Bates pointed out that the contract takes no account of the new Horizon technology, and told Davey the Post Office is using it “to intimidate and prosecute Subpostmasters.”

The letter, in a succinct manner, sets out the problems (the Horizon IT system and the contract), the number of people involved, the fact that the Post Office is “intimidating and prosecuting” people (something Davey today said he was not aware of until the Inquiry) and the feeling they’ve been abandoned by their union. Bates even offers a solution:

“Our organization has access to a number of specialists who could provide the questions and analyze the resulting data if required. Though an independent external investigation instigated at Ministerial level would be the most appropriate, and would without any doubt easily find evidence of the error-ridden system.”

Alan Bates’ first letter to Ed Davey. Davey confirmed the handwriting at the top of the letter was not his

It’s cogent and persuasive, but it’s only one letter. Davey claims it’s possible he didn’t see it before signing the response which was prepared for him by officials within the Business Department.

Davey today agreed his reply was “terse”. He wrote (or at least, he signed a letter which said): “Since 2001, when the Royal Mail (which includes Post Office Ltd (POL)) was set up as a public limited company with the Government as its only shareholder, Government has adopted an arm’s length relationship with the company so that it has the commercial freedom to run its business operations without interference from the shareholder. The integrity of the Post Office Horizon system is an operational and contractual matter for POL and not Government, whilst I do appreciate your concerns and those of the Alliance members, I do not believe a meeting would serve any useful purpose.”

At this point let’s give Davey the benefit of the doubt. He’s just got his first ministerial job, it’s a huge brief, he’s inexperienced, insanely busy and he’s wholly reliant on his officials to tell him what’s what.

What’s what?

Part of the what’s what is set out in Davey’s letter to Bates. To repeat: “Government has adopted an arm’s length relationship with the company so that it has the commercial freedom to run its business operations without interference from the shareholder.”

Davey explained to the Inquiry that he had been told by his officials that ministers only got involved in strategy and could not, or should not get involved in operational matters – that was solely for the Post Office. This rule was apparently set out in the Postal Services Act (a point energetically made by Pat McFadden at the Inquiry this morning). Davey told Jason Beer KC, who was asking questions on behalf of the Inquiry: “That made sense to me. I was not qualified to intervene… and would not have had time to get involved in the day-to-day running of the Post Office.”

Jason Beer KC

Beer wasn’t sure about this: “You understood the Postal Services Act… to require the government to operate at arms length to the Post Office and Royal Mail Group?” he said.
“Yeah, I think that was a reference that we put in a number of letters that were drafted for me to sign and that was the basis as I understood it.” replied Davey.
“Did you ever receive a briefing on what the Postal Services Act in fact said as to this issue?” asked Beer.
“No”, replied Davey.
“And did you ever look at the Postal Services Act to see what the legal relationship between government and Royal Mail Group and Post Office was?” asked Beer.
“No”, replied Davey.

It turns out, as Beer demonstrated to Davey, there was no “inflexible rule, less still an inflexible rule of law” which prevented ministers from getting involved in Post Office matters enshrined in the Postal Services Act or anywhere else. It was simply a “line” spun by civil service officials when it suited them to do so.

Nonetheless, this brush-off was used as the sole reason for Davey’s inaction throughout his tenure. And it wasn’t just Alan Bates who was raising red flags to Davey’s office. For a solid twenty minutes this afternoon, Jason Beer walked Davey through every opportunity he had to do something proactive about the scandal.

There was a note on 7 June 2010 from Keith Simpson MP, enclosing a letter from his constituent Margaret Callow, who had previously written: “on behalf of my daughter [about] her treatment along with others at the hands of the Post Office. I realise your help and support in this matter will have been delayed due to the election and that is quite understandable. However, I now approach you again as this is a problem that will not go away.”

There was a parliamentary question on 17 June from Priti Patel whose constituent Graham Ward had been ruined by the Post Office due to what he felt were clear and obvious errors in the Horizon IT system. Patel’s question asked;

“how many times Ministers in [the Business] Department had discussions with Post Office Ltd on the Horizon system in the last five years.”

Davey’s written reply stated: “The Horizon system is an operational responsibility of the company and I have had no such discussions.”

On 21 June Patel submitted another parliamentary question to Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, and Davey’s boss. Patel wanted to know if the Secretary of State would: “review the effectiveness of the Post Office’s Horizon system; and if he will report his findings to the House.”

The responsibility for replying fell to Davey, who wrote: “I have asked David Smith, the Managing Director of Post Office Ltd, to respond directly to the Hon Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Libraries.”

Patel tried again on 22 June, again asking Cable: “what representations he has received from the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance in the last 12 months; if he will meet representatives of the Alliance to discuss the Post Office’s Horizon system; and if he will make a statement.”

Cable did not make a statement. Instead the question made its way once more to Davey who again sent Patel’s query to David Smith. Jason Beer was bemused.

“The question was to ask the Government what representation it had received from JFSA in the last 12 months.” said Beer.
“Indeed,” replied Davey, ” but I was…”
Beer cut in. “Why would Mr Smith know the answer to that more than government?”
“Well, I was assuming that was the way that it had been done on the basis of what the advice officials were giving me”, responded Davey.
“What do you mean you were assuming that was the way it had been done?… The question is asking you what representations the Secretary of State has received. Why does passing that on to Mr Smith’s help with the answer?”
Davey thought that because all queries like this were dealt with by the Post Office, the Post Office would have a better record than the department itself.

Beer let it go. He took Davey to another Parliamentary Question from Priti Patel on 8 July. She once more asked Cable:

“what his most recent estimate is of the cost to postmasters and sub-postmasters of errors in the Horizon operating system; and if he will make a statement.”

Once more it fell to Davey to answer. Once more he passed the buck straight to Smith.

Dude, where’s your brain?

The letters kept coming. On 12 July, Welsh Assembly member Jenny Randerson wrote to Davey saying: “A former Subpostmistress living in my constituency experienced unaccountable shortages amounting to a total of £36,000. She reported these to her line-manager and, following an investigation, she was suspended and faced criminal charges of false accounting.” Randerson said her constituent was convinced it was the Horizon IT system and both she and her fellow members of the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance were pressing for a House of Commons debate. Randerson wrote: “the apparent inadequacies of the Horizon computer system, and the injustices that it has caused, need immediate investigation and resolution and I would welcome your advice as to the government’s intentions in this matter.

Davey then received a letter via Alun Michael, the former Welsh First Minister, from a former Postmaster who wrote:

“From 2002 until 2004 I was the Subpostmaster at Splott Road post office. That is until POL terminated my contract unreasonably. At the end of the day the root cause behind the problems I had with POL was entirely due to their fault-ridden Horizon system… There has to be an independent investigation into how POL has abused its power by forcing me/subpostmasters into using a corrupted Horizon system to undertake their business on their behalf.”

It went on – George Osborne – then chancellor of the exchequer, forwarded an email from a constituent which stated: “From 5th May 2005 until 11th February 2008 I was the Subpostmaster at Hockley Post Office in Poynton: That was until POL terminated my contract and accused me of falsifying accounts to obtain money from the Post Office. Before I took the position the POL vetted me and found me to be a honest, reliable and trustworthy person and a suitable candidate to take on the position as Subpostmaster. I am still that same person… It’s alright expecting the poor Subpostmaster to make good any shortfall but what happens when they are thousands of pounds under which obviously is a computer error and cannot be right and yet they are expected to make good this loss. Those that cannot are treated as criminals and sentenced as such because the Post Office say they have taken the money. Although the Post Office cannot produce such evidence to support these claims.

On 29 July 2010, Valerie Vaz MP wrote to Davey on behalf of Jasvinder Kaur, who was at the inquiry today. Jas’s story was immortalised in the ITV drama Mr Bates v the Post Office. Vaz wrote: “There have been a number of sub postmasters and mistresses who appear to have been the subject of a fraud investigation. There have been some instances of transactions which appear to be inaccurate causing suspicion on the sub post masters and mistresses. This is the Horizon system which appears to be ridden with faults… Mrs Kaur has recently found a new solicitor and has pleaded not guilty to the charges. She has asked if it is possible for an enquiry to be set up to look into the Horizon system.”

Davey agreed with Beer that all these letters passed through his private office and he was signing the responses. Was he reading them? Were they ringing alarm bells?

Bates’ second letter to Davey

Presentational Reasons

Famously, Ed Davey did meet Alan Bates in October 2010. The meeting came about because in July Bates sent a second letter to Davey, which one of his civil servants, Mike Whitehead, described as “more confrontational”. It’s certainly stronger in tone, and it had an effect.

In his witness statement, published by the Inquiry today, Davey wrote:

“I recall being shown that letter by officials (probably in my private office) and being asked what I wanted to do. Realising that Sir Alan was quite cross with my initial reply, and reflecting on the seriousness of the concerns he was raising, I told my officials I wanted to meet him.”

Today the Inquiry showed that the briefing put together by Whitehead before Davey’s meeting with Alan Bates simply copied and pasted large chunks of screed straight out of Post Office submissions to the government’s shareholder executive team. It was pointed out that the source of the Post Office’s information was its own internal (and later discredited) Ismay report. Whitehead’s briefing also noted that Davey was having the meeting for “presentational reasons” because the Business Department wished to avoid looking bad in a forthcoming C4 News item (which I don’t think was ever made). This was denied by Davey in his witness statement and picked up by Beer:

“You say it’s wrong that the recommendation to you was that the meeting was to be agreed to for presentational reasons.”
“That is wrong”, replied Davey.
“Do you know why Mr Whitehead would say that the recommendation to you was to agree to a meeting for presentational reasons, if that was false?”
“I don’t know”, replied Davey, insisting to Beer that the meeting was called because of Bates’ second letter and because of the parliamentary questions and “because it began to be an issue coming across my desk, I felt it was the right to meet.”

Beer took Davey to an email from Whitehead to some civil service colleagues and Post Office executives. It said: “Ed Davey has said that the JFSA should be invited to meet him in. He took this view on the basis of the 20th of July letter from JFSA and the briefing on the expected Channel 4 news item.”

Davey told Beer he instructed his officials to set up a meeting with Bates because it “it felt reasonable to meet them… I have to say a possible Channel 4 news item was not something that was particularly troubling to me.”

When it came to the quality of information in Whitehead’s briefing for the meeting, which didn’t just parrot the Post Office’s line about Horizon’s robustness but presented it as fact, Davey professed to be disappointed by the work of his officials. “When I saw these documents in the bundle [the Inquiry] sent to me, it became obvious that there had been that cut and paste, as you say, and it surprised me.”
“Why is it surprising that officials would simply swallow whole what the Post Office were telling them by cutting and pasting an account into a ministerial briefing?” asked Beer.
“I thought they would have had a meeting and… probed a bit, because this meeting had been planned for. I’d asked for it in the July, two months after coming into office. It didn’t happen until the October, so there was plenty of time for them to prepare, and given there’d been a number of written parliamentary questions and letters, this is a very important meeting to me and people knew that, and I would have expected a quality brief.”

He didn’t get it.

Listening Mode

Former Subpostmasters and their partners waiting to go into the Inquiry hearing room today

On 7 October 2010, Ed Davey finally met with Alan Bates. Bates brought along Seema Misra’s lawyer Issy Hogg and Amanda Glover, another lawyer from Shoosmiths (who I interviewed for my first BBC piece in 2010). Whitehead’s brief told Davey to avoid making any agreements, and adopt a “listening mode”. There are no surviving recordings or minutes of the meeting.

Today Beer asked Davey: “Did you make any commitments in the meeting?”
Davey did, but “certainly not commitments to things like a review, but… after the meeting I asked my officials to follow up on all [Bates’] points… He had a strong story, and I felt it needed to be looked at again.”

On 7 December, after the “follow up” had been completed, Davey wrote back to Alan Bates. He told him the Post Office “continues to express full confidence in the integrity and robustness of the Horizon system and also categorically states that there is no remote access to the system or to individual branch terminals which would allow accounting records to be manipulated in any way. In addition, I understand that all system activity, down to the individual key stroke, is also recorded into a separate vaulted transaction file with every record encrypted and written to the log and with each record having a unique incrementing sequence number. This log is retained on a separate server independent of Horizon for at least seven years, cannot be altered in any way and all access to it is securely controlled. This approach is consistent with that of banking systems and provides a fully secure audit file blah blah blah blah….

In other words, nothing had changed. When BBC South approached the government for an interview, Davey refused. According to a contemporaneous note I have, dated 6 Jan 2011, a Business Department press officer told us anything to do with Horizon “was an operational matter and really an issue we should take up with the Post Office.”

Davey continued to do nothing about the Subpostmasters claims. He was succeed by Norman Lamb. In a briefing note by Business Department civil servants dated 30 November 2012, Norman Lamb was described as having “adopted an essentially ‘listening’ mode emphasising that Government had no role in operational and contractual issues raised by the JFSA.”

Ultimately ministers continued to swallow the guff coming from their officials and the Post Office in preference to what they were being told by the JFSA, MPs, Second Sight, a few journalists and, eventually, a whistleblower. As the Inquiry has seen, government officials were all too ready to actively collude in the Post Office’s lies because it was the easier thing to do. Still, at least none of this has harmed The Right Honourable Sir Ed Davey’s career. Look at where he is now!


The journalism on this blog is crowdfunded. If you would like to join the “secret email” newsletter, please consider making a one-off donation. The money is used to keep the contents of this website free. You will receive irregular, but informative email updates about the Post Office Horizon IT scandal.

54 responses to “Ed Davey: Chocolate Teapot”

  1. Some of the witnesses to the inquiry appear to be acting dumb as they must know a defence of utter incompetence is their best chance – this bloke isn’t acting.

  2. So, Davey testifies that he brushed off Sir Alan Bates’s first written request for a meeting in May 2010 and only acceded to Sir Alan’s second written request in July 2010 because it was the right thing to do. And it was nothing to do with Davey being briefed in July 2010 about a possible Channel 4 News item, as evidenced by POL00417097.

    I think I gave up on Davey’s credibility as a witness at that stage. Some people have questioned why the Liberal Democrats’ recent election campaign was based around a series of pratfalls performed by their leader. Perhaps the most plausible explanation based on his evidence to the Inquiry is simply that Davey is a p**t.

  3. Davey must be thanking his lucky stars that his appearance at the inquiry did not take place before the election.

  4. MDRA.

    As we hear from those elected to manage the country on behalf of we the tax paying public. I am reminded of those immortal words of the Profumo affair.

    “Well he would [say that], wouldn’t he.”

    Plausible deniability be damned. I’m sorry Ed but the dog did not eat your homework. In view of the allegations in Sir Alan’s correspondence ‘I deferred to POL and the Civil Service’ sounds like another lame excuse.

    You had the chance to be a real hero for the country…And you blew it.

    Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

    1. Davey’s approach to policing the Post Office:

      Distressed woman calls Police: ‘Help me please! My husband is beating me!’
      Police call husband: ‘Hello sir. Your wife says you are beating her. Is this true?’
      Husband to Police: ‘ Absolutely not! Our marriage is 100% robust, we have never had any problems, and I’ve won every time in Court’
      Police to distressed woman: ‘Nothing to see here. Move along please…..’

  5. So did Sir Ed’s excuses of total reliance and unwavering trust in the information fed to him by officials apply in the same way to his bungee jumping? Did he not satisfy himself that the rope was properly fastened? It’s fortunate that I was not on his team!!

  6. We’ve known for several decades that civil servants will seek to lie and obfuscate to ministers. They know that ministers are only fleeting, temporary post-holders and that much policy will continue to trundle on, regardless of who is in the hot-seat.

    There is also no ‘Minister for the Post Office’. The DBT will have many, many quasi-governmental organisations to take care of, as well as attending parliament and being constituency MPs. Governing the Post Office would occupy a tiny fraction of ministerial time.

    MPs all get hundreds, if not thousands, of angry letters every week, all of which get farmed out to their team for bland responses. In 2013, I was also working in a job where I had to sign a dozen bland documents every day – if you were to ask me now about any one of them, then of course I would have no memory of the specifics. I wouldn’t deny signing it and I’d be able to locate the records that led to the signature, but I’d be recreating a scenario of which I had no direct memory. It’s easy to see in retrospect, but of course no-one at the time knew this would blow up into the miscarriage that it was, so why would it be treated as exceptional?

    With all this in mind, I find it hard to assign much blame to any MP. They were ignorant of the fine details and were being misled by civil servants and – from Vennells’ own evidence – the PO board themselves. There were no indications that this was more pressing than any one of a thousand other problems that were brewing.

    No, let’s keep the focus on PO Legal and the management team that allowed them to carry on like they did. This is surely where the blame lies.

    1. I understand your point but MPs have a duty/responsibility towards their constituents. We’re not talking about 1000s of angry letters here, we’re taking about very specific and very serious matters that were raised by constituents. For ministers claiming ignorance and blaming a scheming, manipulating civil service is disingenuous to say the least.
      I totally agree with your last point – the people at the heart of POL carry a colossal guilt.

    2. I had a long career in the (European) Civil Service. Over that career I drafted many letters for signature by my seniors, and later on even signed a few drafted by my own staff. I cannot imagine a single case where the original letter from the correspondent would not have been placed in the file next to the letter to be signed. If the signatory did not bother to read the annexed letter that would have been ENTIRELY his/her responsibility.

      To be fair, in nearly all cases, I’m pretty certain that my ‘boss’ did read, or at least skim, the original correspondence.

  7. I don’t really know why but this man’s evidence made me more angry than at any time during the inquiry. I’ve seen the spiteful banter of Dunks and the sociopath, Sewell; the fecklessness of board member after board member; the misguided loyalty of post office ‘lifers’
    like Ismay and the conniving of narcissists like Van den Bogerd, Mark Davies and Paula Vennells. But this man’s weak,lazy, self-interested dismissiveness infuriated me. I suppose the above were all part of the inadvertent conspiracy: I say inadvertent because a conspiracy needs some organization; but Davey was looking from the outside or perhaps he was on the outside but not bothering to look. He should be ashamed and resign as leader of his party.

  8. It’s striking that so many witnesses claim to hold the competing views that it’s normal for humans to fail/emails and letters to be missed/pressure of work to cause misunderstandings – but also that it was reasonable to assume that in Bracknell Fujitsu was managing the world’s first perfect IT system.

    1. Well said!

    2. I spoke to a sub postmaster who had actually played a part in installing the terminal in his SPO, he says the blame lies with Fujitsu and that they are the ones who should prosecuted.

  9. It’s quite apparent that in all the cases of ministers appearing so far their civil servants and officials are just human shields. At no point do they ever say I’m the minister, tell me the truth now, in full, or get me someone who can. It suits them (the politicians) to not know things so they can later deny any knowledge of scandals and at worst appear to just lack curiosity and can blame unnamed civil servants. Some of the civil servant related evidence has effectively confirmed this is how it works. It begs the question what do the ministers actually do except party politics? Who in their right mind would sign a letter that someone else has drafted without seeing the correspondence that led to it. Would they sign a cheque without seeing the thing they are buying? As we have seen the vast majority of this correspondence is just bland meaningless stock responses to everything. There was evidence of this yesterday where an MP (Priti Patel) asked a formal question of a minster multiple times and the minister has passed it to his junior minister who has passed it to his officials who have cut and paste a stock response. This in all their minds is the question has then been answered. I wish I had the government contract for blinkers it is staggering the number of people in positions of power who must where them.

  10. Even with the time-stamped Inquiry edits available on YouTube there is only so much I can bare to watch, though Jason Beer KC is compelling. So I have found your accompanying analysis of these cross-examinations refreshing, informative and well-written. Your commitment to keeping us up-to date is much appreciated, so much so you are on my Post Office Scandal heroes. Needless to say, Ed Davey is amongst the growing list of villains. Well done, NIck.

  11. I looked forward to reading your posts on McFadden and Davey Nick, and thank you for doing this. I was brain dead after watching McFadden so Davey’s responses would have left me in need of intensive care if I hadn’t had an apt taking me away from listening to him……
    Lovely to see Steve Bogdanoff endorsing your forensic journalistic tenacity on here, and for sure you should be awarded some kind of recognition for your resilience and astounding, investigative work, and your integrity.

    McFadden gave a class act in how to answer any question EXCEPT the one asked, obviously honed this skill during union days or more pertinently during his 2021 court case appealing a decision made in a previous hearing where he was accused of slapping a woman’s bottom………………………………yes he has ‘form’ in terms of being cross examined……….wont continue how this aided his ‘noffing to do wiv me mate” attitude at the inquiry. I think Stephen’s understood what McFadden’s avoidance tactic was, so decided to quit aiding the ‘game’ but was surprised, if not disappointed, sir Wyn Williams didn’t step in with some timely slap in the face for the latter?

    How Davey got re-elected is a mystery, but Swinson was walloped out of her seat, so some justice for SPM’s there……..He, and others like him, disgusted me at taking up a ministerial post and FAILING to look at his brief and responsibilities in his new role, nor did he examine anything connected to the PO contract relationship with the government, leading me to better understand why it is, and how it is that civil servants fail so miserably ( could that even be deliberately?) in their respect for the goverment legislative process they are charged with administering, and for ministers themselves.
    Given other news is of civil servants failings in other false imprisonment cases now hitting headlines, no wonder this country has a lowering reputation of due diligence.

  12. Ed Davey, the chocolate tea pot: An apt description of a man that fits the exact same traits as all those enabling this scandal to grow,thrive and persist: a level of (gross) incompetence, manipulative (if not downright dishonest), lazy (as in not taking ownership of the serious task in hand – for example reading reports written by officials), a lack of sufficient intelligence and/or moral fibre to grasp the importance and gravity of the situation he was placed in and hiding behind the ‘procedures’ and safety of a rotten political culture.
    Let us not forget what this is all about: the ruin and incarceration of innocent people. People died – some by tragic suicide, others by stress related illnesses. ‘Sir’ Ed should resign.

  13. It would be interesting to have a count of the number of times Ed Davey used the word ‘assume’. As a trainee systems analyst 40 years ago I was told to never, ever assume anything.

    1. Me too. I was an aircraft engineer and 50 years ago during my apprenticeship I was told ‘never assume anything in aviation’

  14. I recognise this pattern of correspondence from government only too well but this time it wasn’t the Post Office. It was 2008 and the letters addressed to Ben Wallace ( MP for Lancaster) and Geraldine Smith (MP for Morecambe) were from Ann Keen MP (Under Secretary of State at the Dept of Health).

    The subject matter could best be described as a ‘can of worms’ whilst the Dept of Health continued its ‘ three wise monkeys’ policy for another THREE years. It would probably have gone on for longer if the Lancaster Guardian hadn’t published an account of it (or at least some of it). By that time, more than £700K had been paid by a local NHS Foundation Trust to the ‘small’ private company of the chairman of the Primary Care Trust that was funding it.

  15. Kiwi legal blogger here (again)… we don’t really do teapots around here – we prefer teabags, or better yet, coffee (plunger at a minimum). I get that “chocolate teapot” is usually a supreme British insult which is quite appropriate on this occasion, but has anyone seen the real thing? Check this out from 2008: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/get-naked/experiments/how-useless-chocolate-teapot

  16. Laura MacDonald avatar
    Laura MacDonald

    As a former Lib Dem I feel particularly disappointed re this failure to properly respond to JFSA requests for help. I’ve just googled to find out why Ed is a Sir. This doesn’t seem like behaviour befitting that title.

    1. I assume he was knighted for services to the Conservative party. Without the compliant support of Lib Dems like Clegg and Davey, Cameron and Osborne would never have been able to form a government.

  17. Graham Thorpe avatar

    Reading this piece I am struck again by who the politicians are who actually ARE trying to question and probe during this saga. And they are not the ones who you might say are generally universally popular in the eyes of the population.
    In this piece, it’s Priti Patel and Keith Vaz. Elsewhere you find the likes of Andrew Bridgen.
    All evidently independent-minded people who have shown moral courage in this sphere and interestingly are not possibly normally held warmly in the minds of many of the electorate. Perhaps we should do some re-calibrating and not be so easily told who the good guys and the bad guys of our politics really are.

    1. The story mentions Valerie Vaz, not Keith !

    2. Valerie Vaz I believe.

    3. Valerie Vaz will be pleased that you are confusing her with her brother Keith.

      1. Graham Thorpe avatar

        Thanks all – yes, the Val Vaz in this case. But the point is the same. (Thanks again)

    4. Mmmmm…….’morals’……………….Vaz?……………………………….did you research that connection?

    5. Thank you Graham,

      The same thoughts came to me when reading this article.

      I am fighting the government machine with others over another scandal, and the involvement of government officials in supporting a nonsensical and nonfactual line still remains.

      Bernard Page

  18. “The integrity of the Post Office Horizon system is an operational and contractual matter for POL and not Government, whilst I do appreciate your concerns and those of the Alliance members, I do not believe a meeting would serve any useful purpose.”

    How was this true?

    The public/private partnership with Fujitsu and the contract with post masters (transfer of risk away from post office) are still key to the ongoing post office business model.

    Is that not the government’s responsibility?

  19. Politicians seem to like the idea of an inspectorate being set up to ensure civil servants tell the whole truth! There are so many reasons this is a bad idea. For example, cost; liable to capture by blob’s the next Sue Gray; investigations would take ages; lawyers would probably get involved.

    Better to say: the Code will say you have to tell the full truth to ministers; you will all be on rolling contracts, and if we think you’ve failed on this we won’t renew your contract. But this leaves the questions of quis custodiet ipsos custodes; and who will have the gumption to pull the plug on a colleague.

  20. Jason Beer’s questioning was silky smooth. He had Ed Davey agreeing that he didn’t think about 100 SPMs was a lot, because numbers like 500 were being bandied about. Davey didn’t seem to realise what he’d just done, and I’m surprised it’s not a headline.

    The Civil Service must have found him an easy one to control. Constituent enquiries even from senior MPs provoke no curiosity. Priti Patel had the bit between her teeth, but Ed was content to fob her off. What’s the point of ministers, then?

    There were several weeks between the Bates meeting being agreed and it actually taking place. Yet Davey’s briefing only appeared a couple of days beforehand. You’d think an even slightly curious SPAD would have wanted the briefing note well in advance, in case it raised questions. But the machine ensured there was no space for any of that. Dim Davey just accepted it, and his minder was at the meeting to keep him on the strait and narrow.

    Quite apart from Davey’s wooden incuriosity, the Inquiry should be commenting on how The System was able to stifle any enquiries without breaking sweat. This brings home just how much Alan Bates deserves his knighthood. More than dim, complacent “Sir” Ed.

  21. Actually I think the Horizon scandal will have harmed Davey’s career. Out of government It is easy to get up to all kinds of crazy stunts, fool around and basically create a noise for yourself. The Horizon Post Office inquiry has shown that when he was given a serious job to do, a position of actual responsibility, he didn’t measure up to the task. The session at the inquiry showed that he was a lazy, easily manipulated minister, with no curiosity who couldn’t think for himself. He clearly still has problems taking responsibility for his actions. Not fit to govern.

  22. Civil servants seek to manage and deflect problems, not to solve them. The CS is obsessed with the Policy Stream, whose ranks are filled by individuals selected at an early career stage as future senior officials and who receive early promotions to jobs close to ministers.
    It’s not the civil servant who’s run a network of 200 Job Centres in the North West who gets selected for the top jobs, it’s the one who wrote the policy for Job Centres. That’s why Blair felt it necessary to set up a Delivery Unit in No. 10 but there’s little sign it has had any effect.

    1. 100%.

      Policy is the easy bit. Procedures to deliver the policy is the hard bit.

      But these policy wonks strut around as if they’re the guys (which they usually are) with brains the size of a planet. Treasury is the worst.

  23. Thomas Cooper avatar

    I’m not sure the civil service colluded with the PO so much as led it to the path it took. The CS had a vested interest in protecting and guiding PO to an outcome the CS found acceptable given their desire to cover up the poor investment decisions taken with ICL/Fujitsu and the wider RM/PO split. A lot of vested interests and significant ability to pull the strings of the PO puppet leadership. This isn’t even a Gvmt issue so much as Civil Servants covering their backs. All rather Sir Humphrey in behaviour.

  24. The photo says it all doesn’t it? The face of a forlorn man who has been forced to realise what an absolute disgrace his performance was in his role as a Minister of state for(amongst other things) postal affairs.
    As others have often (accurately) remarked, an Oxford education confers no guarantee of a qualification in what seems often to be that most elusive of attributes in highly educated people, namely “common sense”, defined as
    “good sense and sound judgement in practical matters” QED………….

    1. Geoff. Hewitt avatar

      Sir Ed’s advisors will already be on the case:- ‘How to improve your image, Sir Ed? Simply jump into a lake or do a Bungee Jump. That will cover up your utter ineptitude quite effectively.’

      The tragedy is that this is probably true.

  25. Geoff. Hewitt avatar

    I will have to stop watching the Inquiry as I am becoming increasingly depressed and horrified at the thought that people like The Right Honourable Sir Edward Davey, MP, consider themselves political Titans able to make decisions which affect the lives of millions of us.

    To sum up his ‘evidence’ didn’t he, basically, simply say? : ‘My officials and advisors were very clever men and women. They told me what to do, say, and think, so therefore that was what I did do, say, and thought. Ask questions? No, it was not my brief to ask questions.

    I don’t think I can cope with the idea of watching Jo Swinson seeking to justify her greatness today. I will probably watch the Test Match instead, perhaps with a glass or two within reach!

  26. christian mcfarquhar avatar
    christian mcfarquhar

    Hi,
    Ed Davey always attempts to project a contrived personality of gullible honesty. All nasty outcomes that are borne of his faults, stupidity and ineptness can then be attributed to this, rather than his vacuousness. Chocolate teapot indeed.
    He is not a nice guy.
    Who are the people that vote these people in as party leaders and put them in charge of things? They have to be stupider than he is. I wouldn’t put him charge of a corner shop, let alone anything else.

  27. The Lib Dems like to style themselves as a ‘progressive’, grass rootsy party who, in contrast to the other parties, take a ‘bottom up’ approach to government. Ed Davey’s feeble testimony showed that nothing could be further from the truth. As a minister, Davey was only too happy to take the laziest of top -down approaches, mindlessly signing anything the mandarins put in front of him. He also showed a worrying tendency to blame ‘his’ civil servants for all his poor decision making. No sense of responsibility. He should stick to falling off surfboards. He can’t be taken seriously as a politician.

  28. Your a politician and been a good boy you have got a ministerial position. You know sod all about your portfolio, the civil service tell you what to think, you never question anything in the red box, you sign off 25 letters a day, you move on to another ministerial position which you know nothing about. Even his future solutions with hindsight did not fill me with confidence.

  29. I see you’ve been working late again, Nick!

    Thanks for this resume of the key points from Sir Ed’s oral testimony. The number of red flags he chose to ignore during his tenure as Postal Affairs Minister was appalling, but I must say, I was equally shocked by the behaviour of his civil servants, highlighted by Tim Maloney KC during his questioning. In particular, regarding the reply they drafted to Norman Lamb MP in the case of his constituent, Allison Henderson, claiming she had never cited issues with Horizon when she was prosecuted for false accounting, when precisely the opposite was true – and documentary evidence from her trial and the Hamilton & Others judgment from the Court of Appeal clearly showed this. Presumably this was another lie “the blob” swallowed whole from POL, but surely governmental civil servants should be held accountable for not establishing the correct position before drafting a reply for their minister? It seems to me that the sooner a statutory code of candour is introduced for civil servants the better.

    1. Just want to say, he is Moloney, not Maloney.

  30. Ed Davey held the office of Minister for Postal Affairs. The conduct of the Post Office was regulated by the provisions of the Postal Services Act and, therefore, Davey was the person responsible to Parliament for the administration of that legislation. Yet, we read:
    “And did you ever look at the Postal Services Act to see what the legal relationship between government and Royal Mail Group and Post Office was?” asked Beer.
    “No”, replied Davey.
    How, in the name of Hell and all its comforts, did Davey claim to to be discharging his ministerial duty without ever having read the act that he was constitutionally bound to administer?

    Similar observations and questions about McFadden’s evidence also arise, yet Sam Stevens, somewhat inexplicably, neglected to inquire from McFadden as to whether he had ever read and could point to the provisions of the Postal Services Act which he advanced as having the effect of prohibiting him, at law, from, in his ministerial capacity, looking into complaints made about Horizon notwithstanding that he was, at the time, the minister responsible to Parliament for the administration of the Postal Services Act.

    Just what did these arse-scratching ministers do to earn their state-paid salaries?

    1. I can safely say that a Minister’s lifetime, let alone their time in office, wouldn’t be long enough for them to read (let alone understand to the necessary depth) all the legislation that they’re constitutionally bound to administer. Especially as few of them are legally qualified. That is what the Civil Service is there for. Ministers absolutely rely on accurate, comprehensive and honest briefings. In the overall Governmental system, that’s what has failed here.

    2. Fujitsu Whistleblower avatar
      Fujitsu Whistleblower

      @ John Manners

      Not Sam Stevens – you mean Sam Stein KC.

      And he was right not to castigate McFadden on this particular point; McFadden was entitled and expected to rely on the advice of “his” civil servants, i.e., another parade of liars and eunuchs.

  31. Steve Bogdanoff avatar
    Steve Bogdanoff

    Dear Nick – I have been meaning to write this for some time … I’m a 73 year old Yank living in Oregon who got blown away by the ITV miniseries, “Mr. Bates vs. the Post Office.” There were simply no words to express the level of consternation I was having over such egregious miscarriages of justice. Then I read your amazing book. And I have been reading all of your live blogs of the inquiry. I remain consternated (?), big time, and my heart continues to go out to all the sub postmasters and mistresses who are still waging the good fight for justice.

    I’ll also say that when this sordid affair is finally put to bed, when everyone who was harmed by the toxic culture of the POL finally gets appropriate redress (or at least the best that they can get), and the proper people are held accountable for their horrendous misdeeds, that will be the time for someone to take a long, hard look at the amazing investigative journalism you have provided not just for British citizens, but everyone everywhere who is concerned with the rule of law and justice. My background in this kind of thing dates back to the Watergate investigative work of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post who so richly deserved all the professional and historical honors they received for changing history. I cannot think of a more deserving journalist in this day and age who should receive the same kind of professional recognition and reward than you for your unceasing efforts to ring the bell of British justice. Thank you SO much for all of your phenomenal work.

    1. Spot on. Well said.

    2. Brian Bissenden avatar
      Brian Bissenden

      Well said👍

    3. Well said!

    4. Completely agree.
      I feel embarrassed to have voted Lib Dem. I really didn’t like Angela Rayner, was worried about VAT in private schools and a couple of other policies. But I am very pleased with the way things are being conducted.
      If only this has broken before the election, it might have been different.
      Nick is a hero and I am blessed to have met him. His comments on the abuse also within that even more beloved institution, the NHS, helped me come to terms with what happened to me.

    5. Alan Cornforth avatar
      Alan Cornforth

      Like you Steve, I was totally absorbed in the investigative journalism of Woodward & Bernstein in the Watergate conspiracy. Unlike W & B, Nick does not have the backing of a major newspaper to pay his wages while he follows leads and unearths more sordid details of this story. He may not be taking on a President but he has certainly gained enough credit to be awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service or its equivalent for freelance journalists!?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021


Subscribe For Latest Blog Updates

Tags

Alan Bates alice perkins Alwen Lyons Andy Dunks Andy Parsons angela van den bogerd Bates v Post Office Bonusgate CCRC Chris Aujard Clarke Advice False Accounts Fujitsu Gareth Jenkins Grabiner HCAB Horizon Hugh Flemington Ian Henderson Inquiry Interim Report Janet Skinner Jarnail Singh Lee Castleton Mark Davies Neuberger Nicki Arch Nick Read Outcasts Creative Paula Vennells Paul Marshall Post Office Rebecca Thomson Receipts and Payments mismatch bug Richard Moorhead Rob Wilson Rod Ismay Rodric Williams Second Sight Seema Misra ShEx Simon Clarke Susan Crichton Tracy Felstead UKGI

Categories